I haven't heard any of the new album except for the MTV Icon piece & I thought is was OK at best. I'm goona wait to get the album & make a real judgement of it. I have tix to see them in July & I can't wait to see Rob T play!!!!

I've heard the clips and to be honest, i was pretty unimpressed. The clip I heard was called "Evil Monkey" it was pretty mediocre and certainly not very heavy, let alone a return to there roots, which is whaut this album was said to be.

Also another thing which struck me was that James Hetfields voice is definately not what it used to be, it cracked in the middle of jthe clip.

Anyway i love everything before load, yadda yadda yadda........... sure you guys have heard a million people say that.

It's time for me to make an argument in Metallica's case. So, here we go:

1. How long does it take to record bass lines?

My guess would be that Rob recorded the bass lines over again. It just seems the Metallica thing to do. I think Bob was just sketching out the lines, so they would be able to start work while looking for a bassist. And, if they did keep Bob's lines, how do we know that they aren't good? Producers seem to be able to play instruments fairly proficently. It makes their jobs easier and more talented if they can play. I am willing to bet he did FINE on them.

2. 95% of those songs available for download aren't Metallica.

Most are crappy bands trying to get their **** circulated to a lot of people. Some of them might (might) actually be early demos of songs, but that's what they are. Metallica has WAY too ****ing much money to make a ****ty-sounding record. Every aspect of their recording experience, from the guitar cables to the recording equipment to the mastering equipment, is going to be TOP FLIGHT.

3. Jaymz losing his singing talent? Hah.

Have you heard the songs on S and M? If you have, that question definitley sounds far-off. He showed excellent-e ability.

4. Metallica heavy again?

Yes.
Go to metallica.com and look at the set lists for those Fillmore shows. Have you seen Night 4?
The Thing That Should Not Be? DAMAGE INC? ****ING RIDE THE LIGHTNING?! All old, heavy songs, ad they seemed to be enjoying playing them 100%

1. Doesn't matter, metallica have never used their bassplayers well and I don't think they will start now.

3. He did sound pretty bad on the latest soundclips, he doesn't sound metal anymore.

4. What is this obsession with being heavy or not? Being heavy is not that fantastic as people seem to think, if you want heavy music then listen to some death metal. I'd rather see that they write good songs than trying to be heavy. They don't have what it takes to be an extreme metal band (or even just a metal band) so instead of trying they should be focusing on other aspects that comes more naturally to them.

I just heard "St. Anger" this afternoon on the radio. Here's my review, in just two words: "***t sandwich."

It sounds like they're trying to hard to be what they once were. The song sounds thrown together. Remember back in the day, when their songs had like, six different riffs all jammed into one song, but the riffs at least went together? Well, now they're jamming six different riffs together that don't go together. Lars needs to tighten his snare drum (at least on that particular single) and yes, fireworks_god, James has lost his knack for writing decent, meaningful lyrics (IMO, that's why they stopped printing them in the CD booklets), as well as the ability to sing them. His vocals sound forced and have since Load. Metallica should hang up their cleats and call it a career.

Of course, that's just my opinion -- I could be wrong.

BTW, the vast majority of the people that called in this morning, after hearing "St. Anger" thought it sucked too.

I am a big Metallica fan and i liked the song and video for St. Anger. Their is one thing i didnt like was the sound of the snare drum on the song but really all i have to say is to each is his own and i am very happy Metallica are back.

I heard a track off of the album last night (sorry, I don't recal the title - but I think it was the title track to the album) and it sounded like garbage... a huge flaming turd if I ever heard one. James's vocals were on - but the lyrics were terable. Lars's drumming was the high point, the only thing in the mix I could stand to really listen to. The bass was inaudable and the gutars were obnoxious - the guitar parts struck me as very un-musical. It seems to me that Metallica's number one problem is that they always try to sound new and different when they should have stuck to what worked for them. In case you couldn't tell - I don't like what I've heard of the newer stuff.

Metallica has written some of the better hard rock songs of our time. I'm not afraid to say it- I like Metallica. Sure, some of the later albums haven't been stellar, but they made some really great music that my generation listened to during our most developmental time. They made some good rock music.

Which is why I'm mystified as to why they would put something like St. Anger on the radio. That is the worst pile I have heard in a long, long, time. You would think that an established band like Metallica would have standards after this long. I find it hard to believe they spent so much time and money on this new album to record that. Without any hyperbole whatsoever intended, St. Anger is easly my least favorite song on the radio. It just sounds like utter crap.

(On a side note, Folgers must be ecstatic as Lars seems to be endorsing their coffee cans for his snare drum on the new single.)

You guys just must not get it if you were expecting anything good from the new Metallica. I mean, come on. It's so blatant they are trying to pull a 180 back into the heaviness direction, except they have no new ideas so they'll be trying to dance some nu-metal jig. Yeah, lars playing blast beats to chugga-chugga riffs and James squelching "YEE HAW!". Sounds good to me